Should you invest in Gold? Gold or the Market what's stronger?

www.lbma.org.uk...

The London Boullion Market Association puts Gold at the highest average for 2007 of being around $750 and the lowest average at $550.

The question then becomes does this mean at this time you should invest in Gold or did you already miss the bandwagon?

Confidence in the market is shakey and especially among conspiracy theorists the confidence in fiat currency is even more shakey but truth be told - Gold is not going to perform.

Gold holds back the growth of economies and so economies grow faster than Gold prices...so a Gold standard would actually be dangerous for the world's economies as all the world is in the process of growth - so the Gold standard would inhibit that growth.

It is then important to have faith in the current system which can be best manipulated, and so ownership in companies of strong nations such as US companies is your best bet for growth and making money, not Gold.

There is money to be made anywhere - but this is talking about the "best" versus the most "fringe" niches.

The link isn't seeming to work...

www.lbma.org.uk...

But the article on the gold standard and its ineffectiveness in managing economies that are in the midst of rapid growth - is found in the article of "Alchemist" 44 year 2006 titled "Going Back to Gold? Historical Perspectives".

FreiMaurer...Fed governor?..Gold short?..over-weighted the DOW?

or all of the above? lol!

There appear to be four arguments here:

1) Contributors to the London Bullion Market Association's 2007 precious metals forecast, submitted appraisals ranging from $550 to $750 average POG. Therefore, it's too late...the train has already left the station?


My response: We're still in the early stages of this precious metals bull, and the fundamentals have never been stronger. Most educated Gold Market investors see a POG top-out of four figures...with a minimum target of $1600 - $1650. I'll take a $750 POG in 2007, but I anticipate better. Bear in mind that last years London Bullion Market winner; Ross Norman, submitted this years high call of $750...and he's gonna win it again.


2) Gold will under-perform because confidence in the equities market, and in fiat currency is shaky?


My response: (see Gold fundamentals, and maybe pull up a 2yr, or 5yr chart to fully appreciate Gold's performance & direction).


3) A statement about a 'Gold Standard' holding back economic growth.


My response: There is no 'Gold Standard', Technically, there hasn't been for 36yrs...this has allowed for massive monetizing...and for Gold's free run.


4) To profit, have faith in US stocks, and in the current system because it can best be 'manipulated'.


My response: The systemic risks in the US equities market were exposed for all to see this week...guess you were out of town. lol! With all due respect...I think you should study this piece by Congressman Ron Paul. /7nuzh


Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

I take FreiMaurers position on this at least in part. First his point was that the London Bullion is predicting that gold has neared its peak at least for this year. To say that experts are predicting four prices that you give is to ignore that about 20 experts who set the market are saying otherwise. I am sure there are many analysts out there who say for their own reasons that gold will reach $1.600 USD but the bottom line is that the members of the London Bullion essentially set the market or at least influence it greatly. Their averaged predictions are usually on the mark and over the last few years have a trend of being accurate.

I personally don't understand how gold will under perform for the reasons mentioned I see it as not under performing simply it is at its peak. The mining industry can't sustain the costs for much longer, oil is back up to above $60 USD and so on.

Concerning the gold standard and holding back growth there was suggested an article to read. It'd be nice if the article worked then we all could read it.

And lastly what you perceive as risk is not risk at all, even if you bought stock the day after the 1929 market crash you would still be thousands of times richer today than what you spent on the equities then as long as you bought a company that continued to exist such as GE or various banks and industrial companies. That type of long term security is far more than acceptable and far more stable than gold it is day traders and speculators who give stocks an aura of risk.

Mod Note: Obviously Banned Member Freemason, Banned member Freimaurer and Frimurar are the same person.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by TheBandit795]

Ok I have been studying the whole precious metals markets phenomenom for a few years now and the real value is silver. The useage of silver will soon over take the long term stockpiles and this will possibly reset the gold-silver ratio back to its more traditional numbers.

The real problem with buying metals based on US dollars lies in the fact gold will rally with an upswing in oil prices but if it coincides with a US dollar collapse then in relative value you may only break even unless you are living in the US using US dollars ect.. and here is why.

Say gold doubles in value ( USD ) and the USD relative to the Sterling Pound halves, you leg it up on the gold price but lose it again on the US dollar devaluation relative to the pound.

If the London Stock Exchange has a stock pegged to the gold price then you may not feel this swing with the USD but who really knows what the Oil will do and if it affects the USD concurrently.

Gold holds back the growth of economies and so economies grow faster than Gold prices...so a Gold standard would actually be dangerous for the world's economies as all the world is in the process of growth - so the Gold standard would inhibit that growth.

------------------------------------------

maybe I am wrong, but that statement right there kind of tells me that the economic growth is the result of an economy that has no value base...or maybe better put...it is based on how well the manipulators can present the illusion.

only those manipulations hurt people, while making other richs. the dot com bubble burst, and they had to manipulate things to divert that bubble somewhere else, low and behold, all of a sudden, housing values skyrocket, people are being encouraged to take out equity loans on the value, and yes, their property taxes also increased (bailed out the local communities from their deficits), and the spending went on....
now, they're looking for another avenue for their bubble, before it bursts in the housing market. a game of hot potatoe being tossed from one sector to another. heaven help us all if it ever gets tossed into the gold/silver market!

our currency is based on the "good faith and trust" of the country that issues it....and the US at the moment is the currency it's all pegged to..
ya....the US if reallly acting as if it desires to maintain any kind of faith and trust....they're spending money like that have no tomorrow to worry about.

our stocks are based on the "good faith and trust" of the corporations, and it's managers....ya know the ones that are paying out multimillions to the elite few while they drive the company into the ground...ya, they reallly deserve our trust, don't they. can't trust them not to put half of their workforce in the unemployment line for an extra million or so in salaries and perks next year.

In the end, they are just paper, based on an illusion. as long as the illusion holds, they have value, once the illusion dissapates, well, then it's another story.

Gold and Silver have held value since the beginning of time and will continue to as long as the alchemist (funny that you should use a source with that name, someone who spends their life turning worhtless lead or whatever into Gold), but anyways, until the alchemist finally reaches that goal, Gold and Silver will always hold value. it might fluctuate, but it will always be of more value than a peice of worthless paper...
unless of course we chop down all the trees and paper becomes rarer than gold...

Originally posted by Frimurar
I take FreiMaurers position on this at least in part. First his point was that the London Bullion is predicting that gold has neared its peak at least for this year.

Peaking? With Gold currently trading at $645? I believe it's safe to say that Gold isn't even close to peaking for the year. Bear in mind that this is only March 7.

Actually, FreiMaurers presented a contest of sorts. Analysts participating in an annual PM forecast (winner receives a 1 ounce Gold bar). Submitted predictions range from $550 to $750 US as an "average" POG for the current year - 2007. The operable word here is "average".

To say that experts are predicting four prices that you give is to ignore that about 20 experts who set the market are saying otherwise.

First, they don't "set" the market...second, I didn't quote four prices. I offered a four figure target price of $1600 - $1650 as Gold's eventual blow-off top...not as a yearly average for 2007...and it's important to remember that $1600 - $1650 is the conservative estimate......a $700 to $750 average for this year fits nicely here...and consider that Gold hasn't traded at these levels since 1980.


Did I mention that the 2006 gold bar winner; Ross Norman...also submitted the $750 bid for 2007.

Many analysts have agendas, as do those in England, but the fundamentals don't lie.

Their averaged predictions are usually on the mark and over the last few years have a trend of being accurate.

"Their" averaged predictions...plural? There is only one winner...that means nineteen miss the mark. The wining average has been rising yearly...and will continue to rise.

I personally don't understand how gold will under perform for the reasons mentioned I see it as not under performing simply it is at its peak.

You say this based on?.

The mining industry can't sustain the costs for much longer, oil is back up to above $60 USD and so on.

Have you ever noticed the symbiotic price relationship that exists between Gold & oil? Oil up...gold up? However, expect it to de-couple as it approaches the top.

As I've mentioned, the fundamentals are strong, and this includes the current lag on the supply side. Demand is growing...production is down (South Africa reported their lowest gold production in 82yrs -2006). The majors are scurrying to secure reserves, making mergers and take-overs the name of the game going forward. This is precisely why the mid-tier, and exploration sectors so heated at present. Current price levels allow producers to mine their lower grade deposits, saving the 'good stuff' for later. A bonus is the rise in the price of base metals ie...copper, lead, and zinc. The sale of these 'by-product' metals further offsets production costs.

Even at $600 Gold or less, positively leveraged (unhedged) miners are well positioned to profit...as are their shareholders.

Concerning the gold standard and holding back growth there was suggested an article to read. It'd be nice if the article worked then we all could read it.

Works for me...www.house.gov...

And lastly what you perceive as risk is not risk at all, even if you bought stock the day after the 1929 market crash you would still be thousands of times richer today than what you spent on the equities then as long as you bought a company that continued to exist such as GE or various banks and industrial companies. That type of long term security is far more than acceptable and far more stable than gold it is day traders and speculators who give stocks an aura of risk.

So the market only carries the "aura' of risk.

Sorry, you're gonna have to try & feed that one to someone else friend. Are you a Broker? lol!

1929?...don't forget to adjust those long term gains for inflation.

Peace
OBE1

I will close this thread because the member will not be able to reply. He is a returning banned member.

(What is Freemason in Japanese? So I can know his next sockpoppet beforehand )